Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I expected better of you, Chris... Don't take internet bloggers at their word, no matter the ideology of the individual. As far as I can tell, this guy is totally full of poo, as the paper he references (http://start.umd.edu...USTerrorism.pdf) does not make any of the claims he says it does. In fact, it appears he didn't even read the report. In fact, he is either writing about a different document entirely, or he literally didn't read a single thing in the document and just puked random bullshit on a website in order to get hits. The word "coffee" does not even seem to appear in the pdf. Nor does "cash." But it does discuss religious-based terrorism (and specifically states that Islamic extremists fall into this group, contrary to his nutball claims). After a second reading, I think he is saying, "I can tell you who the left hates, its these groups of people!!!", but that is not how it sounds given a quick read-over.

It classifies terrorist attacks by ideological motivation, and has either right wing extremist, left wing extremist, religious, ethno-separatist/nationalist, or single-issue, and identifies "hot spots" of attacks from each of these groups, and examines potential factors that might contribute to terrorism... None of which have anything to do with buying coffee with cash.

Now, for right wingers out there, the paper has an interesting, and disturbing, finding:

...we also examine the effect of language diversity as a measure of heterogeneity. Counter to recent empirical findings, language diversity evidences a strong and significant positive relationship with terrorist attacks and ordinary crime. Much more work needs to be done to fully understand the relationship between language diversity and terrorism and ordinary crime. In particular, in future research we plan to identify and isolate potential effects of specific language groups.

But as they say, their findings need more work and are not in total agreement with the rest of the literature in that regard.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I expected better of you, Chris... Don't take internet bloggers at their word, no matter the ideology of the individual. As far as I can tell, this guy is totally full of poo, as the paper he references (http://start.umd.edu...USTerrorism.pdf) does not make any of the claims he says it does. In fact, it appears he didn't even read the report. In fact, he is either writing about a different document entirely, or he literally didn't read a single thing in the document and just puked random bullshit on a website in order to get hits. The word "coffee" does not even seem to appear in the pdf. Nor does "cash." But it does discuss religious-based terrorism (and specifically states that Islamic extremists fall into this group, contrary to his nutball claims). After a second reading, I think he is saying, "I can tell you who the left hates, its these groups of people!!!", but that is not how it sounds given a quick read-over.

It classifies terrorist attacks by ideological motivation, and has either right wing extremist, left wing extremist, religious, ethno-separatist/nationalist, or single-issue, and identifies "hot spots" of attacks from each of these groups, and examines potential factors that might contribute to terrorism... None of which have anything to do with buying coffee with cash.

Now, for right wingers out there, the paper has an interesting, and disturbing, finding:

But as they say, their findings need more work and are not in total agreement with the rest of the literature in that regard.

This isnt a blogger. This is a real report, conducted by the Dept. of Homeland Security.

It cost $12 million of taxpayer money too.

This article was originally on the Drudge Report yesterday, but I couldnt find the original, so I posted this one instead.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dude, look at the link I provided you. It is what he explicitly cites and it doesn't say anything like his claims. Whether it cost 12 mill or not I don't know, but it does nothing to predict if a coffee drinker paying cash is going to be more likely to be a terrorist or not.

What the report DOES do is describe *HOW* it grouped different TERORIST GROUPS - the coffee comment isn't in there, but the report mentions that terrorist groups that fit the following profile:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

and committed a terrorist act were considered "extreme right wing terrorists."

If you read the section above as, "people who fall into this category are terrorists," you did not actually read the document and have no idea what the intent of it is.

I can't find any Drudge Report article on this and everything I find is based on that *single section* without paying attention at all to what it is TALKING ABOUT.